Physicians’ Controversies Towards Fertility Preservation in Young Patients with Gynecological Cancer: An MITO Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guidelines on fertility preservation (FP) have been developed to help young women preserve their fertility, which may have been impaired due to cancer. Nevertheless, the correct management of oncological patients of childbearing age remains controversial, especially regarding gynecological malignancies. For this reason, we explored the current knowledge, attitudes, and clinical practices of physicians towards the challenges of FP in this population. A specially developed questionnaire on fertility-related issues in patients with gynecological cancer was administered via email to 167 people, representing 167 centers of the Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer and gynecologic malignancies (MITO) group. A total of 56 physicians, who represented 56 out of these 167 centers, responded to our survey (response rate: 33.5%). Approximately half of these physicians stated that they had adequate knowledge about the use of gonadotropin-releasing analog (GnRHa) injections (n = 30; 53.6%), the cryopreservation of oocytes (n = 25; 44.6%), and the cryopreservation of ovarian tissue (n = 27; 48.2%) in patients with gynecological tumors. Meanwhile, regarding (borderline) ovarian tumors, endometrial or cervical cancer, and genetic mutation carriers, attitudes varied substantially. In conclusion, the results of our survey highlight the different perspectives on controversial topics among physicians directly involved in the treatment of these tumors. These findings also demonstrate the lack of evidence on these issues to adequately counsel this specific patient population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".